Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 2(47)(v) is CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini (398 ITR 531), cited in 228 of the 331 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 2(47)(v)

CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini
398 ITR 531 · 2017 · Supreme Court
228
citing judgments

A transfer of immovable property, for the purpose of capital gains under section 2(47)(v) of the Income-tax Act, occurs only when the agreement allowing possession in part performance of a contract is a registered instrument, as mandated by Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia v. CIT
260 ITR 491 · 2003 · High Court
150
citing judgments

For capital gains purposes, a 'transfer' under section 2(47)(v) occurs and capital gains arise in the year when possession of the property is handed over in part performance of a contract, such as a joint development agreement. This was the settled position before the specific provisions of section 45(5A) were introduced.

7. CIT v. MR.P.FIRM.MUAR
56 ITR 67 · 1965 · Supreme Court
127
citing judgments

A taxpayer can raise a plea that their income is not taxable, even if they have previously made an agreement regarding the quantification of taxable income. The principle of estoppel does not apply against a settled position in law.

Balmukund Acharya v. DCIT
310 ITR 310 · 2009 · High Court
116
citing judgments

Tax authorities are obligated to act in accordance with the law and ensure only legitimate taxes are collected, assisting assessees who have been over-assessed due to mistake or misconception.

Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT
269 ITR 1 · 2004 · High Court
108
citing judgments

There can be no estoppel against the statute, meaning tax cannot be levied or collected without express authority of law. An appellate authority may adjudicate additional claims or legal contentions to ensure the correct tax liability is determined.

77 ITR 237 (Ker), CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. (1971) 81 ITR 303 (Del), CIT v. Archana R. Dhanwatey
136 ITR 355 · 1982 · High Court
78
citing judgments

Tax authorities are mandated to correctly determine the legitimate taxable income according to the law, and no tax can be levied or collected unless explicitly permitted by statute, irrespective of the assessee's admissions or acquiescence. The appellate authority should adjudicate additional claims to ensure the correct tax liability is arrived at.

S.R. Kosti v. CIT
77 ITR 237 · 1970 · High Court
47
citing judgments

Income tax authorities are obligated to assist assessees who are over-assessed due to mistake, misconception, or lack of proper instruction, ensuring only legitimate taxes are collected.

Dy. CST v. Sreeni Printers
67 SCC 279 · 1987 · Reported
37
citing judgments

A tax cannot be levied if it is not permitted under the Act, even if the doctrine of estoppel might otherwise apply. There can be no estoppel against a statute, and a party is entitled to relief if tax is levied or collected without legal authority.

CIT v. K. Adinarayana Murthy
65 ITR 607 · 1967 · Supreme Court
28
citing judgments

An assessment made on an assessee under a different status than what was specified in the notice is illegal and without jurisdiction. The assessee must be put on notice and invited for objections if the Assessing Officer proposes to assess them under a different status.

CIT v. Shivsagar Estate
204 ITR 866 · 1993 · High Court
24
citing judgments

Judicial discipline requires consistency in legal interpretation. Once a view is taken in a particular year, and absent contrary material, the same view should be followed to ensure finality in litigation.

Judgments on Section 2(47)(v)

Sri. K. Rajanna, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

ITA 928/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T. A. No.928/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Sri K. Rajanna, Hoovadigara Beedhi, Hosuru Bagilu, Anekal Town, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Dist. …. Appellant. Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 9(1), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Shri H. Guruswamy, Itp. Respondent By : Shri P. Dhivahar, Jcit. Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 4.9.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Bangalore Dt.24.12.2013 For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Facts Of The Case, Briefly, Are As Under :- 2.1 The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2008-09 On 2.4.2009 Declaring Income Of Rs.13,43,590 From Business & Long Term Capital Gains (‘Ltcg’). The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short 'The Act'). The Assessing Officer Observed That On Verification Of The Return Of Income, It Was Seen That The Assessee Was In Receipt Of Sale Consideration Of Rs.3,38,00,000 From Sale Of 12 Flats Received From The Developer Consequent To A Joint Development Agreement (‘Jda’)

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri P. Dhivahar, JCIT
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54